posted
I just listened to the Bush news conference this afternoon, and am so pissed off about this i'm going to post about it.
DISCLAIMER: i know it's not just bush who does this, but that's what got me pissed, so that's what i'm quoting from.
quote:QUESTION: The government of Israel continues to build settlements in occupied territories and it continues to build the security fence which Palestinians see as stealing their land.
You've criticized these moves mildly a couple of times, but you've never taken any concrete action to back up your words on that. Will you?
ANSWER: ...You asked about the fence. I have said the fence is a problem to the extent that the fence is an opportunity to make it difficult for a Palestinian state to emerge. There is a difference between security and land acquisition, and we have made our views clear on that issue.
I have also spoken to Prime Minister Sharon in the past about settlement activities. And the reason why that we have expressed concern about settlement activities is because we want the conditions for a Palestinian state on the ground to be positive; that when the Palestinians finally get people that are willing to fight off terror, the ground must be right so that a state can emerge -- a peaceful state.
This administration is prepared to help the Palestinians develop an economy. We're prepared to help the long-suffering Palestinian people.
But the long-suffering Palestinian people need leadership that is willing to do what is necessary to enable a Palestinian state to come forth.
quote:QUESTIN: Perhaps, the clearest, strongest message you have ever sent from any podium has been what you like to call the Bush doctrine. That is to say: "If you feed a terrorist, if you clothe a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist."
And I'd like to follow up on the Middle East. You have noted that Yasser Arafat is compromised by terror. Condi Rice has said he cavorts with terror. You've both noted that he is an obstacle to peace. He has, in political terms, chocked off your last two Palestinian interlocutors.
What is it that prevents you from concluding that he is, in fact, under your own definition of what a terrorist is, a terrorist, and should be dealt with in the same way that you've dealt with Saddam Hussein and Charles Taylor?
ANSWER: Yes, well, not every action requires military action. As you notice, for example, in North Korea, we've chosen to put together a multinational strategy to deal with Mr. Kim Jong Il. Not every action requires military action.
As a matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us. And a reminder, when you mention Saddam Hussein, I just want to remind you that the Saddam Hussein military action took place after enumerable United Security Council resolutions were passed.
Not one, two or three, but a lot.
And so this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrines peacefully or through alliances or multi- national forums. And we will continue to do so.
quote:QUESTION: You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your national security adviser, in charge of the management of the administration's Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she's been in charge?
And a second question: Can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?
ANSWER: ...The first question was Condoleezza Rice. Her job is to coordinate inter-agency. She's doing a fine job of coordinating inter-agency. She's doing what her -- I mean, the role of the national security adviser is to not only provide good advice to the president, which she does on a regular basis -- I value her judgment and her intelligence -- but her job is also to deal inter-agency and to help unstick things that may get stuck. That's the best way to put it. She's an unsticker...
quote:QUESTION: Were you surprised at the hostility they expressed toward the United States and toward your policies, both in the Middle East?
And also, I understand that some of them brought up specific comments made by General Boykin.
ANSWER: ...But it was a very positive meeting, very hopeful. The two things that came out of there that I think will interest you: one was that -- the question was, "Why do Americans think Muslims are terrorists?" That was the universal question from the three Muslim leaders. And my answer was, "That's not what Americans think. Americans think terrorists are evil people who have hijacked a great religion."
That's why Mr. Boykins' comments were -- or General Boykins' comments don't reflect the administration's comments.
And by the way, there's an IG investigation going on inside the Defense Department now about that.
He doesn't reflect my point of view or the view of this administration. Our war is not against the Muslim faith. As a matter of fact, as you mentioned tonight, we're celebrating the Iftaar dinner with Muslim leaders. We welcome Muslims in our country.
quote:QUESTION: Can you explain to those Americans, sir, whether you are surprised those weapons haven't turned up, why they haven't turned up and whether you feel that your administration's credibility has been affected in any way by that?
ANSWER: ...David Kay's report said that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of 1441, which would have been casus belli. In other words, he had a weapons program, he's disguised the weapons program, he had ambitions. And I felt the report was a very interesting first report, because he's still looking to find the truth.
The American people know that Saddam Hussein was a gathering danger, as I said. And he was a gathering danger, and the world is safer as a result for us removing him from power. Us being more than the United States, Britain and other countries who are willing to participate -- Poland, Australia -- all willing to join up to remove this danger.
And the intelligence that said he had a weapon system was intelligence that had been used by a multinational agency, the U.N., to pass resolutions.
It's been used by my predecessor to conduct bombing raids. It was intelligence gathered from a variety of sources that clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat. And given the attacks of September the 11th, it was -- you know, we needed to enforce U.N. resolution for the security of the world, and we did. We took action based upon good, solid intelligence. It was the right thing to do to make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
And David Kay continues to ferret out the truth. Saddam Hussein is a man who hid programs and weapons for years. He was a master at hiding things. And so, David Kay will continue his search.
But one of the things that he first found was that there was clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, material breach they call it in the diplomatic circles. Causes belie (ph), it means that would have been a cause for war. In other words, he said it's dangerous.
iIn none of these Q&A's did he answer the question he was asked, instead he spent 5 minutes talking in that charming southern drawl about some issue peripheral to the question and then moved on. Why don't reporters ever point this out? What's the point of fielding questions if you're not going to answer them? The white house can script its own talking points; why the sharade?
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Read between the lines. It's not what is asked - it's what isn't asked and it's what isn't said.
Confusing?
Take the weapons question. What wasn't directly asked was, "You promised the goods - where are they?" The indirect answer? "We're still looking based on past reports and current search activities."
posted
i think the indirect answer is "we have no idea whatsoever, so stop making us look bad and go back to showing video clips of me landing a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier"
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The President has become a movie star, and not a leader. He spouts off a lot of pretty, smart sounding words strung together like pearls, but they don't mean anything. THey just dazzle people into thinking things are happening and the administration is competent. the public goes "BAAA!Beh! Baaaa..."
Oh, how beautiful...
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't reporters ask that the politicians stay on the topic?
The won't be invited to the press conferences again.
The Reporters job is to bring us news. To do this they need to attend presidential press conferences. There is a fine and difficult line to walk between antogonizing the administration and kissing its backside.
The solution most used is to ask tough questions, but don't fight to follow up. It won't help anyway. You will be ignored and then not invited back.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree---being possibly a future member of the press (will have a dergree in Journalism and Radio/tv/film in the spring, but I like tv and film better).
You have the freedom to speak as per the first amendment---but what you say/ask can and will be used against you.....
"what?! you dare question his highness? off with your head!"
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you people have any reading comprehension? Let’s look at the weapons question:
There were three parts to the question:
[A]re [you] surprised those weapons haven't turned up?
OK, he did not explicitly answer this. But giving rational reasons for not finding the weapons clearly indicates he is not surprised because there is a reason for the lack of finding the WMDs.
Why ... haven't [they] turned up?
Did anyone see “he's disguised the weapons program” in Bush’s response? Could that be why we haven’t found them? Do you need pretty pictures and PowerPoint slides?
[Do] you feel that your administration's credibility has been affected in any way by that?
The whole thing is about whether it’s affected his credibility regarding his justification for the war. I’ll summarize for you:
A material breach of resolution 1411 occurred and justified war.
Hussein had a weapons program
Hussein was good at hiding his weapons program.
Many countries helped gather intelligence about Hussein’s WMDs.
Other countries using their own intelligence agreed with our analysis of Hussein’s possession of WMDs.
The UN thought the intelligence was valid.
Many countries and organizations made use of this intelligence to justify previous actions against Hussein.
The search is ongoing.
So the clear implication is that there is no credibility gap because Bush wasn’t the only one to believe this before the war, the intelligence is reliable and from many sources, and the fact that we haven’t found them means they’re hidden very well. Would you have preferred he just say, “No. Because they’re hidden and we’re still looking. No. Next question please.”? Perhaps he could have used a thesis statement, 3 nicely organized paragraphs, and a conclusion, but the substantive information is all there. I give him a B+ for content, C- for grammar and organization.
posted
Actually, he did answer most of the questions. Now whether or not you got the answer you were looking for is a different matter.
Journalists in that situation have a very limited time to ask their questions and expect to receive a certain amount of information. They do NOT expect to receive Earth-shattering admissions.
But you need to look at the questions being asked. Many are the classic open-ended questions, basically prospecting to find new information.
Bush wasn't going to say they had given up on finding WMDs and he has good reason not to. Part of his political standing counts on finding concrete evidence. There's been plenty of circumstantial evidence already, but no "smoking gun." Yet. One might never come, or one might appear tomorrow. It's really hard to tell. They're searching a pretty extensive area, looking for WMD technologies or stockpiles that could be hidden in an area as small as a swimming pool.
How does he explain Rice's role in Iraq effectively? It appears she's working as a liason between agencies and something of a trouble shooter. She hasn't taken over as commander of the overall efforts.
The Palestinian fence? He's literally stuck on a fence with this one. One the one hand, he needs the roadmap to peace to work out, and that requires cooperation between Israel and Arafat. Israel made their first tenative moves, Arafat acted conciliatory and then the bombings started back up at the behest of outside groups who are actively interested in keeping the conflict going. The Israelis responded and Arafat, always at the end of many leashes, went back to his old ways. How can Bush fight the wall when Israel says all it wants is a chance for its people to live peacefully, that they want a buffer from the people who will bomb buses and shopping centers and whatnot? How can he defend the wall when the Israelis won't give up settlements or military reprisals against the PLO and other organizations that hide among a civilian population?
And he did answer by saying that military intervention was a last resort and appears to be trying diplomatic pressures in a world that is becoming less and less receptive to them. His own policies may have worked to undermine diplomatic discourse, but it's the row that we all have to hoe now.
But Kerinin, what answers did you want to see? The press can't put words into his mouth.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humm.... I never thought of it like that. I guess because I believe he is not telling the truth of the matter and I don't think he's very credilble right now.
We attacked Iraq under the guise of a WMD program, and as of yet, no program has been found. I am sure they are still searching for one, and may beleive that it was disguised in some way, but I don't believe there was one.
And the fact that Bush is a very bad speaker---I'd also give him a C- for organization. It's very confusing to listen to him.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the reporters do it to themselves. In almost every one of those examples the reporter either asks more than one question (allowing the politician to pick the one he wants to answer) or builds up to it in such a way that answering it would be PR idiocy, no matter what the answer really was.
You want to get an answer, or a definitive dodge? Ask one question, no build-up, no fudgy interpretations.
"Will you take action to stop the Israeli government from building settlements in occupied territories?"
"Why isn't Yasser Arafat treated like a terrorist under your own definitions?"
"What changes have been made since Condoleezza Rice was put in charge of the adminstrations's Iraq policy management?"
"Were you surprised at the hostility they expressed toward the United States and toward your policies, both in the Middle East?" (fine by itself, just don't offer a second question)
"Were you surprised that no weapons have been found in Iraq?" or "Do you feel your administration's credibility has been affected in any way by the failure to turn up weapons systems in Iraq?"
Easy to understand, harder to miscontrue, and dodgy answers would be much more obvious. Of course, as was pointed out, that reporter might not get back in tomorrow...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually I think they have found evidence of programs of WMD but no weaponse themselves. How active the programs were and how close they were to producing anything is also under investigation, but the fact is that there were programs.
posted
Politicians and people in power never give a straight answer. This is not just American- it is world wide in the democracy. Perhaps some politicians are better at it that others, and sometimes they can give a straight answer, but a straight answer is a dangerous explosive.
There is an old(ish) British television comedy you should see. It's called 'Yes Minister', and the sequal 'Yes Prime Minister'. It proves once and for all, that nobody ever gives a straight answer in politics, in a hilarious way.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
watch the left hand while the right hand does some pretty amazing stuff . . . .
you all will have to pardon my cynicism - I am living through state politics/budget wars right now and I can guarantee you, there is nothing "direct" about the process -
and it ain't no different at any other level of government (i.e., power/authority/them's in charge pullin' the strings)
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
